From: William Linne (photoassistant@hotmail.com)
Date: 04/30/02-10:17:24 PM Z
One thing that really pissed me off about this book (and alot of alt work
these days) is how they glorify the rough edges and "mistakes" of alot of
early processes. No wet plate worker worth his salts would have shown a
plate with the rough edges and blemishes that so many present day
practitioners seek. I don't understand why the "mistakes" have become the
prevailing aesthetic. The processes are so beautiful on their own. Also, why
do so many wet plate workers shoot the exact same subject matter that
photographers did in the 1800's. I saw some Spagnoli dags that were taken in
NYC recently. Those were beautiful. Do we really need another wetplate of an
antique tea kettle on the porch of a log cabin?
William
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christina Z. Anderson" <zphoto@montana.net>
To: "Alt Photo List" <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 8:15 PM
Subject: chrome alum
> Sandy King (or anyone else in the know), a while back you said you
> usually use chrome alum for hardener, sometimes potassium alum, too. You
> mentioned mixing 2 g of chrome alum (the purple stuff) per 1000 ml of
> gelatin solution. This is about 1/2 tsp. How much *gelatin* do you use
in
> your 1000 ml--my formula calls for 2 tsp Knox gelatin, does yours, too?
> I'm starting to work with tiles and glass to get liquid emulsion to
> stick, and a student wants to try to sub glass with the chrome alum
solution
> for gum; she tried it already with varnish and a mild sanding and the gum
> totally came off. She was inspired by my telling her a while back about
> Sarah Van Keuren's students doing gum on glass. Short of a sandblaster,
> we're going to keep trying.
> Chris
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 05/01/02-11:43:31 AM Z CST